Instead of making excuses, as valid as their arguement may be, why not please the client and add tweakable options for those that wish to dampen certain outcomes of this model?al

for advanced users: dynamic lighting became en vogue some 15 years ago with the advent of 3dfx Voodoo Graphics and technically would have been easy to implement 5 years ago in FSX using DirectX9. If implemented using DirectX hardware acceleration, nightlighting would not have decreased but rather imroved FPS. without any addons, FSX has hardly ever CTD on my pc.the C172 flight model in xplane 9.5 was just as bad as it was already in xplane 8.5, so the article's argument is still valid, unfortunately even today, after xplane's 10th major release.happy now?

The C172 flight model is just as bad in 9 as it is in 8 is it? Compared to the payware SF260. Not to mention the core flight model adjustments it has received over the years.REAL valid argument there, buddy!You always judge an entire sim based on ONE default aircraft?

"Compared to the payware SF260"compared to xplane's own claim:"xplane calculates for itself the lift, drag, and moment on every surface of the plane individually at every point in time. The result is a flight model more realistic than anything else out there."

"Compared to the payware SF260"compared to xplane's own claim:"xplane calculates for itself the lift, drag, and moment on every surface of the plane individually at every point in time. The result is a flight model more realistic than anything else out there."

Why is it FSX freeware developers can't make flight models as good as A2A payware?Because it takes dedication to make an accurate flight model.X Plane is no different. I've said it in other forums, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. I can make a rough C172 flight model in less than a day. But it'll take me about a month to make an accurate one (in ALL areas of the flight envelope...stalls included, which is poorly modelled in FSX, even according to PMDG). Both using X Planes Planemaker software.So X Planes own claim holds true and valid.

fly.............,Next you'll need to prove how many real hours you have in the plane, how many XP hours you have logged, your flight controls, a picture of your set up screen in XP, your birth certificate, blood type, and then you'll be told that those claims are just marketing and don't mean anything.Edit: See what I mean?!

"So X Planes own claim holds true and valid."no. xplane is not sold primarily as a tool (though it may be a good one) but a flight simulation that comes with a flawed C172 flightmodel which requires users to fix its shortcomings. this might be acceptable for a shareware tool, but not for a commercial product that praises itself as "a flight model more realistic than anything else out there." periodxplane had better included a C172 that supports this claim instead of contradicting it. If I go to "the best steak restaurant" in town, am I supposed to first go shopping to a delicatessen and then bring my own spices?

fly.............,Next you'll need to prove how many real hours you have in the plane, how many XP hours you have logged, your flight controls, a picture of your set up screen in XP, your birth certificate, blood type, and then you'll be told that those claims are just marketing and don't mean anything.Edit: See what I mean?!

Keep working on gettin' that post count up, Jim. It's a noble job you're doing.

"So X Planes own claim holds true and valid."no. xplane is not sold primarily as a tool (though it may be a good one) but a flight simulation that comes with a flawed C172 flightmodel which requires users to fix its shortcomings. this might be acceptable for a shareware tool, but not for a commercial product that praises itself as "a flight model more realistic than anything else out there." periodxplane had better included a C172 that supports this claim instead of contradicting it.

And can you tell me which default aircraft in FSX has a realistic (in all areas of the flight envelope) flight model?

If I go to "the best steak restaurant" in town, am I supposed to first go shopping to a delicatessen and then bring my own spices?

What a weird analogy.If you knew anything about the payware market vs the default market, you'd see how strange your analogy really is.

I won't, because I am not here to defend one or the other product, sorry.But then, I don't remember Microsoft having claimed "a flight model more realistic than anything else out there."except for a very general marketing term "as real as it gets". so general noone would expect anything specific. xplane's claim is different and misleading.

I won't, because I am not here to defend one or the other product, sorry.But then, I don't remember Microsoft having claimed "a flight model more realistic than anything else out there."except for a very general marketing term "as real as it gets". so general noone would expect anything specific. xplanes claim is different and misleading.

You won'd defend a product, but you'll come in here and attack one without researching what the other payware aircraft have to offer. Thanks for the clarification. It's definitely appreciated!You would be hard pressed to find Microsoft saying ANYTHING about FSX. "As Real As It Gets" was it's slogan for FS98. More than a decade ago. They sure won't say it's realistic now. But you will get other, top level FSX payware developers, who take several years to make one add on, make claims that it's highly realistic...in all areas of NORMAL flight. This does not include engine out performance, stalls, deep stalls, spins, performance with a feathered prop, an unfeathered prop, etc...Thanks, again!

Keep working on gettin' that post count up, Jim. It's a noble job you're doing.And can you tell me which default aircraft in FSX has a realistic (in all areas of the flight envelope) flight model?What a weird analogy.If you knew anything about the payware market vs the default market, you'd see how strange your analogy really is.

when these people are talking about xplane .. why do you ask for MSFS examples to prove a point.

when these people are talking about xplane .. why do you ask for MSFS examples to prove a point.

When I'm having a discussion with someone, why do you feel the need to jump in and interfere?I'm sure they are more than capable to speak for themselves without you holding their hand.If they want to criticize X Plane, they need to asknowledge FSX's shortcomings. And if they don't, I will. Like you said, JUST to prove a point. There are only 2 mainstream flight sims. If they have bad things to say about X Plane, it's a safe bet they DO have FSX.

When I'm having a discussion with someone, why do you feel the need to jump in and interfere?

Kind of like the way you did when fly.......... and I were having our chat, right?Kettle meet black.

Kind of like the way you did when fly.......... and I were having our chat, right?Kettle meet black.

Not really. You were indirectly referring to me. Any 5 year old could see it. So I decided to respond.I was not referring to Tierborn, indirectly or directly.I admire the effort though, Jimmy.

Fly, you have 28 posts here and are very new. This entire topic was on track until you made that original post. We want our members to enjoy their experience here, and it's OK to have differences. However, with so little posts, and such strong ideals, it truly makes us wonder what your intentions are here. To stir up the pot?I'm not going to lock this thread, unless my fellow admins decide otherwise, because I don't want productive members losing access to participate in certain posts because of a few bad eggs.

One thing I agree with Fly is that when a product touts itself to have the most realistic flight model possible due to the way it calculates it's flight dynamics, why are the included aircraft not as perfect as a payware aircraft? Why should a user who buys a product then have to buy an additional product to get the realism the sim claims to have? The expectation would be that any aircraft in the sim should have the most realistic flight model.I realize that the limitation with making an aircraft realistic is the data with which the sim uses to calculate the flight model may not be entirely available, but still the default aircraft should be a demonstration of what is possible instead of a down and dirty version of something just to get the user flying.I will never understand why consistently, we are being told that most XP payware aircraft have a very realistic flight model as XP allows. But don't most, if not all PMDG/Wilco/FeelThere/etc payware aircraft for FSX? The flight models in FSX aren't perfect, but they do handle well enough to not make people complain about basic handling flaws and it doesn't claim to be a perfect representation of flight modeling. The one thing that would shut people up about this topic would be to have default aircraft that have the excellent flight model characteristics advertised by LR themselves. The new 747 is a great example of this. I have no hours in a real 747, but it flies well enough for me to believe that it is at least close.As a disclaimer to stop an ensuing flame ware on myself, I want to admit I have been an FSX user for a while, but love XP and especially the x737 freeware. It is a great demonstration of what is possible within XP for a few dedicated individuals. I like XP, but am not afraid to explain faults that lie within XP that I see. It is my wish that in fixing these faults, XP will be a relatively untouchable product where a new user will not be turned off by things as simple as a default aircraft that handles in an unrealistic manner, putting them off to the product with thoughts of "they call this realistic? Humph. I'm going back to FSX." There are lots of people out there that must have had this experience.